"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim." Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC
He said gun deaths went up but didn’t mention that violent crime in general went down and he definitely wanted to avoid the Australia situation where gun deaths went to zero but deaths in general went up. It seems like they don’t care if people die as long as it’s not by a gun
A debate in general with people against guns and the second amendment and aducated people and pro second amendment would be a fun thing to see. Because people against , never seem to know about the subject and go off on feelings. And the educated side have facts and logic which cause the other side to start screaming/ not letting someone talk and trying to win by being loud.
The producers which is probably Steward need and want to produce this very outcome. He needs to look smarter and more sensible than his opponent guests. They can’t have a Colion on l. It would never air or they would heavily edit it all out.
It was an over hour long interview that got chopped down to 8 mins, so who knows how "Daily Show" edited this interview was. This is way you have to do live interviews/debates no prerecorded. That being said he should have know better and not taken part in the first place.
@@jackeagleeye3453 He was wrong on everything because he constantly put words in his guest's mouth. Also I find it very hard to believe you own so much as a pea shooter with that attitude of yours.
This is a perfect example of why I rarely try to talk to people about their insane political views. It goes like this in the best-case scenario. Most often they spout a few buzzwords, refuse to listen to anything contrary, and walk away offended and indignant thinking they nailed it.
Exactly. You nailed it perfectly. That’s why I’m done talking to people to even try to have an honest conversation. I’d just assume the world leave me the F alone.
You've just described every conversation I've had with a leftist in the past 20 years. Convincing someone of the truth when they've been led to believe a pack of lies is one of the hardest things to do. It's akin to deprogramming a cult member.
I just keep asking them questions about their logic. They break down real fast. Or they start talking about something else, which I tell them and bring it back to the original topic. Asking them to define their terms almost always throws them for a loop.
No , he's winning . Not because he's mean , or because he's right , Because he's smarter than this guy. This guy is intellectually outmatched. And before you come at me that I'm a liberal and I hate guns just because Im saying this isn't the guy I want representing me on the world stage , that is literally ALL I'm saying. I want someone who's intellectually honest about some of these decent points Stewart is making , to be the one to rebut them. Not this guy. He's not ready.
@@davidgaines8607 True! And I believe that goes directly to the point made, that John Stewart planned, prepared and scripted this show and chose his so-called opponent. But even still had to talk over, interrupt and distract him to keep the conversation going on his terms. It was a complete and utter dog & pony show. Complete with the standard lies, misrepresented stats and excuses for denying law abiding citizens their God given right to self preservation rather than directly going after the criminal(s). John Stewart has obviously become very good at all of this and is now apparently willing to use his talents for evil.
The fact that he (John Stewart) asks a question and then just talks over the answer is enough for me. He doesn't want to hear an answer, he just wants to talk to hear himself...
Colion, I love your ability to put everything about the gun control agenda so succinctly!!!!! Thank you for your bull dogged manner in keeping us informed.
I can't believe just how combative Jon is. Asks questions, doesn't give his debate opponent an opportunity to answer, and dismisses his answer immediately when he does answer... While interrupting the entire time, whenever he can. I'd LOOOOOVE to see him attempt to debate Colion Noir.
That's by design, Stewart wasn't and NEVER has been looking to have a debate or even an argument in good faith. He does his Wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man shtick and hopes that his gullible audience will be distracted by the fast speed and which he talks and his quippy zinger gotcha moments to actually stop and think for a second that he's grossly conflating the numbers on things.
I was waiting for this one. Stewart picked someone he thought would be easy pickings for ambush “journalism” and “debate”. Stewart probably saw you on Bill Maher, Colion, and knew he didn’t have a chance at pushing his agenda with this much ease. Thanks for your work.
"So your solution is..." Yeah, John doesnt want to listen, he just wants to talk. He came at this with a predetermined outcome and he was going to get it no matter how late the editor had to stay to make that happen.
@@stevenredman1582he tried to take over every sentence the senator said so that he couldn't finish any points. That is a tactic used by someone that knows that their arguments aren't actually legitimate. He did nothing but steamroll everything that the senator even started to say without letting him finish anything. Jon Stewart is a hack, and this being his own show is no justification for having a fascist mindset. You should not be a fan of people telling you they know better how to live your life than you do
Had some young kid tell me once that he felt that owning a gun would make him feel more likely to commit a crime. I told him that he shouldn't own a gun then. This gun talk came about because I was wearing one of your hats Colion! Priceless
Should've told him that's why other people are allowed to have guns...in case some dumbsh#$ that has a gun thinks he's above someone else for the shear fact that said dumbass has a gun
That’s where it stems really, mentally degraded society decay. A gun doesn’t commit violence contrary to the Marxist rats trying to disarm the population under virtue signaling. Kane killed Able with a rock, I don’t think the rock used itself to bash Abled head in 😂
@@chthulu27 The AI deciding what you can or cannot see or say. You thought big brother was overbearing. Starting to feel like Rosa Parks on the Montgomery Bus yet?
It bothers me when people interview someone with the intent to argue and push a specific narrative rather than to have a conversation. Thanks for debunking these with facts
@@Manco65 They are communists. Socialism is their base platform, but it will inevitably end with a communist takeover. It should have been snuffed out long ago, now it will most certainly end in a genocide of either Americans or these communist rats infesting the country.
This is why rogan gets heat sometimes. He doesn't push back enough. He lets people talk and says what they really think. This is the outcome an audience actually seeks when they watch or listen. Guess that's why he has the largest podcast in the world. John on the other hand thinks hes doing and interveiw. Hes just trying to score points.
Tyranny has been described as "the deliberate removal of nuance", which has now become the foundation of most modern leftist arguments. If they act like firearm violence exists in a vacuum, then they can blow it up into a much larger problem than it is in reality.
He also bold faced lied with his "guns kill kids more than everything else". The number he's citing includes 18&19 year olds, with the huge majority of those murdered being gang members
also...it is not gun violence vs gun violence it is gun violence vs violence also it is a moot point, these are natural rights, stats and positions are irrelevant, it is a right, the bill of rights neither grants or denies anything, it is there as a reminder, guide and warning because it is directed at the government to limit them not the citizens! i could argue and debate so much better than these people they get to argue and debate on tv, i guess that is why Jon gets them cause they get the fundemental argument completely wrong
The Revolutionary War militias that the amendment is talking about were government run by the states. The Articles of Confederation is more explicit about what a militia is: "but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage." So the state can provide weapons to its militia if that's the way it wants to run it. Some states might require people to bring their own weapons. In any case, the militia is a state run body of non-regular (non-professional) armed combatants that is trained with the purpose of protecting the state. It's not groups of dudes running around in the woods pretending to be soldiers or everyone carrying a gun everywhere in case they need it for protection.
@@jasons5916 what is the purpose of the bill of rights? Why does this document exist? Answer - it is a list of individual freedoms. You cannot say some of them are individual freedoms and some are actually organization of goverment bodies. That makes ZERO logical sense. The framers would not have included this in the bill of rights if that were the case - they would have left the second amendment out entirely. Also the wording of the first amendment specifically says "the right of the people". Your redefinition of this term "people" means the government because it's "the government of the people" RIGHT? So our modern "reimagination" of the first amendment says that the government can restrict speech and the press and religion if the government decides to because they are "the people" ie "the government of the people".
@@carlkinder8201 Some of the rights in the Bill of Rights are states' rights. The 2nd amendment was considered a right of states for self protection until recently. The Tenth Amendment is a state right. The Constitution describes how the federal government is supposed to work and what powers it reserves for itself. The rest were reserved for the people and the states with the states still having a lot of their own powers as a holdover from being individual colonies and then confederate states. One of the possible issues was the federal government using its powers (specifically military powers) to subjugate a state, so the BoR explains that the states can maintain their own militias. For your second point, no saying the government is the people does not mean that it can do whatever it wants. The writers of the Constitution and BoR knew that there was a possibility that a majority of the popularly elected government could suppress the rights of the minority, so they purposefully delineated rights that elected officials or government actors could not violate.
Jon will be the kind of person that wakes up one day and realize that our nation has become a tyrannical dystopian nightmare and he will look around and ask "who let this happen".
Historically speaking, in that scenario, he would be rounded up and executed. No brand new socialist or communist government wants to fight their useful idiots when they discover how badly they had been screwed.
The left will never allow someone who actually knows the facts defeat their silly arguments with facts. This is always set up against anybody that knows the facts. The leftist will always resort to name calling, yelling and screaming because they know what they are saying is a lie. Or they truly believe it and are tarded.
The Senator mentioned on Twitter that the interview was about 90 minutes. Stewart did a LOT of editing. No one should interview with folks like Stewart unless you have your own cameras recording and can release the full unedited interview.
@@kbob9625 It doesn't change anything, because it says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE, and not the right of the militia. SCOTUS already answered this question in the 2008 landmark decision District of Columbia v. Heller.
@@Cybertron824 SCOTUS changed the definition and had a different precedent before that. It wasn't until they were lobbied by the NRA... The comma changes everything. It literally says we have a right to a militia as you can't be considered free if you can't militia and you can't be considered a militia without the right to bear arms. That's what the comma meant and that was the original intent. It was not intended that every American can have a semi auto military assault rifle. It's ok though, it's not like we have a mass shooting problem not experienced anywhere else on earth even though our mental health is on par with the developed world. It's not like the leading of cause of children in the US are guns. No problem here.
@@timmyturner8579 it's not wrong lol it's a stat 🤦 people under the age of 18 die more from one thing than anything else, that's a bullet fired from a gun. A lot are suicide which is what you are most likely referring to as "twisting" the stat but that doesn't inflate the stat, where they killed by a gun, yes. It doesn't matter if it was self inflicted or by the hands of a criminal... They still died by gun. My fucking god 🤦 you can watch that entire clip and still come out defending that fucking Senator is mind baffling. Jon Stewart destroyed him lol
I like how the senator doesn’t interrupt Jon but when the senator is about to make a great point Jon blocks that with a simp responce of “you are just against chaos”
And throwing in the “sighing/chirping” ad libs in order to throw some comedic theatrics in there as if it strengthens the inadequacy of his asinine arguments…. 🤡 I like Jon Stewart as a comic actually and loved his work to help get the 9/11 First Responders Act reauthorized and the PACT Act passed, but as for the 2A and his pro-gun control stances, I’m in complete disagreement.
@@MoneyTr41l like most Jewish snakes anything for another Shekel, they especially love The Un-earned shekel. But they crave the shekel earned from immortality That's what gets them off. EVIL EVIL PEOPLE LOVE EVIL DEEDS
I own a gun, got a permit and think the NRA is a piece of shit oorganization. Beimg for the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you have to be an ignorant grifter who condones common sense. This guy is paid off to keep spewing the bs he spits. Can't take everything Glas an outrageous then mock liberals.
My gay liberal aunt thought that background checks wernt a thing… she thought that you could go into a gun store and just pick what you wqnt in a shopping cart and walk out🤷♂️
"Guns exist and sometimes people murder people with them, therefore theyre not regulated" is thr thinking. That theyre present at all in their minds proves lack of regulation.
Aint it just funny that the greatest murder rates are in states with the strictest control. And of course no one talks about who does the murders or why. Take gang killing out of the tally and the numbers plummet.
As someone who caught a bullet with their head 2 blocks away from my local police station, I never once blamed firearms. As a matter a fact I wish I made more money to buy more. I find it very scary how some people can't analyze their own way of thinking and are so blind to their thought process. Love how you explain all of this and how much sense it makes. Hope Stewart sees this
I agree, frightening! Not even on 2A tip.... sometimes the train of thought....is soooo off the rails? Honestly I haven't seen the source material for this. But you can tell only one person came here for a real conversation...
That's what I was told. But of course since we've been changing language since forever. That old word that ment one thing one time. Apparently. Now means somthing totally different because they said so.
@@lizardas The term "well-regulated" two hundred years ago meant "to keep something in proper working or functioning order". Later in the 1800's it started to be used as a term meaning "in accordance with applicable laws, policies, or rules." and for a time during the 19th Century it could be used in either definition depending on how it was used in a sentence or paragraph. While the English language has changed and evolved, the original intent of that term "well-regulated" has not. It is well recognized by Constitutional Scholars and the Supreme Court as to its original meaning.
Many gun laws are illegal to begin with, so are you making an argument that infringements are okay? or that we should accept said infringements and move on to punishments for again, said infringements?
@@francischambless5919 A law BY DEFINITION cannot be illegal. It can be unconstitutional (and thus unenforceable), but it can't be illegal. The law DEFINES what is illegal.
@@francischambless5919 I would point out if these politicians, prosecutors, officials and law enforcement really believe that passing laws that infringe on the second amendment work, then they wouldn't be accepting plea bargains to lesser charges.
I love these videos where you go through and debunk the statements of the self-appointed "experts". I've had the very same "well-regulated" discussion with numerous people. You can lay it out for them using Rakove's interpretation as well as studies from Harvard that you've mentioned, and they just gloss over and say that doesn't "fit" with what they've seen. Well done, Colion. I truly appreciate your efforts in advocating for the 2A.
I wish I was stupid rich so I could pay Jon Stewart what ever he wanted to sit down for a UNEDITED conversation with you! Keep up the solid work brahda🤙🏽
Technically none of them are supposed to be infringed, but they are. The First Amendment says "shall make no law" establishing or preventing religious exercise, or abridging the rights of free speech, assembly, the press and the ability to petition the government, but it seems everyone wants a crack at violating that one.
The Nazis barred Jews from owning guns right before slaughtering millions of them. Guessing Stewart wants to ignore that part of his people's history. George Soros, another Jew who actually cooperated with the Nazis, I'm sure he is the one paying off traitors in this country to argue for more gun control.
Well most gun control advocates either don't care or don't know that most gun control laws are inherently and historically racist. This is the same side that is all about equality and BLM btw. Yet they reference historical analog of racist gun laws as if those are historical precedence.
I think the word you’re looking for is “affirm”. In a conversation you acknowledge points to address them. People like Stewart don’t want to talk things out, they want to be right.
@@chaoticiannunez2419 I used the word I was looking for. ac·knowl·edge /əkˈnäləj/ verb past tense: acknowledged; past participle: acknowledged 1. accept or admit the existence or truth of. 2. (of a body of opinion) recognize the fact or importance or quality of. Affirmation would be a desire to have the other support the point. He knew the senator would not agree with him. He just wanted his points recognized as important or true, or "acknowledged". He didn't want a two-sided discussion.
@@txpat6377 Please stop looking at everything in the amendment ok!? Some people only want to use certain part of the amendment. Depending on narrative.
And nothing in the Constitution even mentions she/girl/woman. Go figure. So no it's not equal or American rights period, they left out a key figure in the rights of citizens.
WOW, this was about as timely a video as I have EVER seen. My sister, who is ANTI GUN sent me the John Stewart video as proof that one of her hero's was right on. 5min after she sent it I sent her yours. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
Jon Stewart has no special skill. He is not some great debater. He does not possess a superior intellect. He's just right. That's why the senator looks like a guilty, lying little boy. Dahm knew Stewart was right before the discussion began. Sen. Nathan Dahm knows he's nothing but an ambitious phony who does not care who has to die if it means he succeeds. That is why the senator was used as a mop and disgraced on national television. He did it to himself by being wrong.
@@readtherealanthonyfaucibyr6444 they do that alot. They do that alot. Once I was being told I wasnt part of "The Militia" and then they shoved the very legal code in my face that told me with certainty that i was. And the only people not part of the millia according to the code is Women not in the Armed Forces. But every able bodied man.
@Read The Real Anthony Fauci by RFK Jr, you mean the people who can't even define what a woman is laughed at you for stating a historical fact? Color me shocked.
@@ḵulagaaw its possible to support one good thing while being blind about most others. dude is a priviliged liberal who can live in a gated community with bodyguards.
You're right it is a one sided conversation only those with an iq below a retarded child believes otherwise. The senator was not deflecting he was being interrupted. Sorry the genius who said otherwise never had a conversation.
@@jaiden1121 on the contrary, you don’t know WHAT the senator was going to say because John never let him say it. A CIVIL conversation/debate doesn’t consist of shouting someone down or browbeating him, it consists of both stating their cases and letting their reasoning make their argument.
Stewart wants to talk about gun deaths but majority of gun deaths outside of self inflicted are shootings involving gangs. To eliminate the majority of gangs, drugs, prostitution and gambling need to legalized. Prohibition gives criminals money and power.
I am glad that this senator is on our side, however, I would mop the floor John Stewart in this debate and I'm just a regular pro 2A citizen. Thanks for the great video Colion!
I feel the same exact way, I’m a high school drop out, with zero college, and drive a truck for a living, not only would I destroy Stewart in a debate about the 2nd amendment, or ANY OTHER POLITICAL TOPIC, but that goes for any lefty comedian, actor, or elected officials, Democrats are the most ignorant people in this country. As Is their voters! Any Topic or anything to do with the Constitution. I hate when leftists media elites use terms like “Constitutional attorney” or “Constitutional scholar” are you kidding me? Just read the fkng thing, it’s self explanatory and written in plain English 🤔 🤦♂️. Especially The Bill of Rights! Which are written with the express purpose of stating what Government CANNOT DO! Everything else is just noise. It made me laugh when Biden said: “Way back when they wrote the 2nd Amendment their were restrictions” that is so patently absurd, the first 10 amendments are written to mean the EXACT OPPOSITE, it restricts GOVERNMENT never, EVER, the people 🤦♂️
Bro… No I wouldn’t, not registering guns gives y’all weird ass school shooters a even bigger reason to commit the crime and y’all racist conservative asses will do y’all very best to give him a minimum sentence
I am consistently disappointed by pro-gun debaters who fail to use obviously correct and useful arguments. What Colion Noir is doing here is what we all do when we watch Jon Stewart talk. Stewart's lies are so easy to destroy.
@@CadenTheVillain Cite one instance, ONE where any conservative, anywhere, advocated for any mass shooter to get the minimum sentence? That’s just typical progressive nonsense that you pulled out of your ass!!! 🤦♂️, “racist conservatives” 😂 obviously you don’t know anything about the history of progressives in the USA!! The first “progressive” Democrat elected president showed the film “birth of a nation” in the whitehouse. It’s such a shame to see so much willful ignorance and lack of critical thinking from leftists in the USA! 🤦♂️
@@reliantncc1864 I could not agree more! It is very disappointing, and makes me think they don't actually care about our rights. If they did they would be able to have a reasonable rebuttal to any of the anti 2A arguments.
@@joerobo682 Who is doing the training? Do they have to take a test, like we do for driving a car? Do they get a license? Can that license be taken away if they break the law? No, I guess not. That would be government involvement. We can't have government regulating public safety issues, can we? We should just trust everyone to do the ethical, principled, moral thing, and the world will be sunny and bright.
How debates used to be: you win because you presented more facts and logic in an efficient manner How debates are today: you win because you were louder, talked more, and got your brainless base more fired up.
The Leftist would never debate with a strong knowledgeable person with equal time including balanced cross examination, because they realize their arguments completely collapse with anyone that they cannot bully into silence.
They don’t want to debate someone like Colin because they want to win debates if they debated Colton they’d get shredded like when Shapiro debates liberals
The democrats in Minnesota have passed a law giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. There's nothing to say they can't vote! You are automatically registered to vote when you receive a DL.
More importantly, voting is not a right. I'm so tired of hearing this. Voting only exists in concert with government. Without government, voting doesn't exist, so it can't be a right. Rights are inherent; they are not dependent on government.
This registration to vote argument actually helps the 2a side if you work though it logically. A national gun registration would be the equivalent of the government logging every vote you’ve ever cast and who it was for. The only concession on the 2a side with agreeing here would be some kind of ID requirement to purchase a gun.
Ammendment XXVI Ratified July 1,1971 The right of the citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.
7:00 Yeah, I am a South African and I can confirm that crime is absolutely rampant in this country, long after the guns were taken away the gun violence problem persists. In fact, I had a gun pointed in my face a few weeks ago, and as is pointed out I have no gun to defend myself; But, even supposing I did, had I acted in self defense with a gun I would have likely been going to jail as a result. The laws here honestly feel like they are implemented to protect the criminals and not the citizens.
think like a criminal when new laws are put out, only then will you see why it benefits them more than it benefits you. Gun control was just the start, next they'll mess with your income by taxing larger chunks out of it
Love how Stewart asks a question, interrupts the answer then proceeds to answer the question himself. When people do that to me, my response is generally, "Well, seems like you're more interested in arguing this with yourself, I'll leave you two be." and then end the conversation.
Even worse - I can't forget screaming at the TV when I heard Obama say, 'Gun Show Loophole' as if you can just show up and buy a gun at a Gun Show. No FFL dealer will sell you a gun and risk going to jail and a fine without a Back Ground Check before the sale. You can't pay an FFL enough money for a gun that's worth going to JAIL over. Good luck with that effort.
"Well regulated" in the Second Amendment means that members of the militia had to be armed and provisioned with enough ammunition to to fight if called up. That's why the individual right to keep and bear arms is so important. Militia members are expected to provide their own weapons and gear.
@@timwood225 My statement is exactly what the framers meant, as that's what "Well regulated" meant in the language of the day and subject. Also, the regulated item in the 2nd amendment is the MILITIA, not the right to keep and bear arms. The militia in Constitutional context means every able-bodied person in the civilian population who are able to be called up to military service by their state or the Federal Government. That's the unorganized militia. The organized militia is standing state forces. However, the 2nd amendment does NOT make that distinction, and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clear as a bell. If the right to keep and bear arms were limited to the militia, it would have said "the right of the militia", not the "Right of the people".
Yours amounts to the proposition that the writers of the constitution considered "well regulated" any fool with a musket, powder, and ammunition, which seems to me unlikely especially considering the experience of the continental army at the start. Do you claim that everyone in the US has an absolute constitutional right to have, possess, and own a gun? And it matters not-very-much what everyone said, but rather what the law says - that being what everyone settled upon. And further, any right to own a revolutionary-war era weapon cannot be reconciled with modern weaponry, practice, and society. Keeping in mind that "absolute" means absolute, and "everyone" means everyone. Unless by "absolute" and "everyone" you do not mean what these words say.
@@timwood225 Let's cut to the chase - The individual right to keep and bear arms is essential to have a well-armed and regulated militia, which is NECESSARY to the security of a FREE state. That's what the friggin amendment says. Military and militia regulation is instituted to standardize equipment and training needs, not to deny Americans the right to keep and bear arms. You need individuals with guns to call in to militia service.
So what "people" do you say have this right? All people? If not all, then who is excluded, and given your reading of the 2A, how are they excluded? And as to the weapons to secure a free state these days, where do you buy those? The trouble here is you're lost in a stupid and ignorant fantasy of wishful thinking involving guns. Now, you weren't born with it, so be a little honest with yourself and see if you can figure out how you became a gun-nut. I'm not asking, but I'll read what you write.
Jon Stewart is one of those public figures who does get things right now and then but not enough for me to bother watching him. Even Bill Maher accepts objective reality to a far greater degree than Stewart does. I never thought I'd see that happen though. Who knows, maybe Jon Stewart will grow up one day too. Not holding my breath.
It's cause he's not as smart as he thinks he is. If he allowed people to actually explain their arguments Stewart would look stupid cause nothing he says is profound, he simply doesn't let the other person argue back.
Thank You Colion for putting this out there, Stewart is the kind of person that would rather confront a house intruder with a dildio then protect his family. Its not about safety! its about not letting the goverment have all the power and for us citizens NOT to be thrusted into Tereny from an abusive Goverment. Like we are heading into now!!
Even out of context Jon Stewart seems like a very unreasonable person to talk to. How that man stayed so calm and reasonable with him is pretty impressive.
No. He did not let him speak, from what I saw here. Disingenuous at best. Almost embarrassed to have been a long time Stewart fan. Almost, nothin, I am embarrassed.
@@LaserParody Lol same here! It's not even the fact that he's anti gun or "pro gun legislation" (however he wants to interpret his stance), it's how poor his arguments are and how arrogant his rebuttal are. I expected more from someone who's so l loud about his opinions and who considers himself an intellectual.
@@T-8UG83AR The real problem is that in current times all of the "Educated" and "Intellectuals" are all self proclaimed and anointed and cheered by other self proclaimed intellectuals who in reality are anything but educated or intellectual
To me since the 2nd amendment says 'the people ' it means the people NOT the government. Especially since the government hasn't even been for or of the people for a long time. ❤️👍🇺🇲
Correct. If the 2nd amendment was written for the government, why would it say "the people"? And why would a constitutional amendment exist strictly to protect the right of the government to bear arms? Seems redundant when the government already has the authority to bear arms through the military.
Next time a lefty tells you "gun rights are for the government only and not the people", hit them with "in America, the people ARE the government.." (or at least that's how it's supposed to be..)
@@smokingcrab2290 No. At one time the government was compiled of people giving some of their time to help with governing. Now it is comprised of career politicians who only use their position to gain power, money and control OVER the people. They are not the people. I'm a Constitutionalist.
Ironic how Jon will interrupt the Senator every time he's about to say something that would shut Jon down. Yet, the Senator is very patient and doesn't interrupt Jon.
@@CadenTheVillain because John kept asking stupid questions and proving he doesnt care about the underlying issues with gun violence or care about far more pressing issues that causes far more deaths. T
This interview wasn't even an interview. It was like watching a parent verbally punish a child. You could see he wasn't interested in what the senator had to say.🤦🏼♂️😒
Jon Stewart has no special skill. He is not some great debater. He does not possess a superior intellect. He's just right. That's why the senator looks like a guilty, lying little boy. Dahm knew Stewart was right before the discussion began. Sen. Nathan Dahm knows he's nothing but an ambitious phony who does not care who has to die if it means he succeeds. That is why the senator was used as a mop and disgraced on national television. He did it to himself by being wrong.
Don't make that mistake. Jon Stewart isn't dumb. He's dishonest. He's not missing the obvious flaws in his argument. He's purposely dodging them. He's a liar and a traitor.
I saved myself from being robbed just the other night and didn’t turn it in to the police wonder how many times this happens? John don’t get robbed you might get hurt
Some estimates put your experience in the millions annually. If a crime isn't reported, it isn't recorded, often incidents without discharge of firearms are not even recorded.
I like how when the senator brought up the example of the domestic victim jon countered by saying anecdotal evidence doesn't count while making the exact same argument in reverse WITHOUT any examples...
Johns sarcasm is overwhelming and he is so rude, the senator should just tell him thanks for showing us your true colors and get up and leave. Screw John Stewart and his linear kindergarten thinking!!
Jon Stewart: "the police don't FEEL safe" (offers no backup for that claim) Also Jon Stewart 2 minutes later "I'm not interested in anecdotes" Things that make you go hmmmmm
On his show he actually talked to a police officer about the fact that many cops do indeed not feel safe. You shouldnt claim he couldnt back up his argument if you are unwilling to seek out that information on your own
@@oogmastaa4 that's still anecdotal. And did you say it was on his show in general? Or somewhere else in this interview? Also i've heard from many pro gun people and cops they feel much better with increased gun and CCW. So anecdote vs anecdote
@@177SCmaro He actually lays out a full argument on his show. Talking to the cop wasnt the only thing he did. Once again, a little bit of research goes a long way
Which is funny because he's doing the opposite. People who are strongly pro- or anti-gun won't be swayed by this interview. Reasonable people who are on the fence will, and they'll be swayed _against_ Stewart as soon as they notice that he's doing nothing but interrupt and spew sound bites while the Senator is trying to make calm, reasonable arguments. Stewart is doing exactly what he told the hosts of _Crossfire_ was "hurting America." He's a hypocrite.
He stated facts vs a person acting like we don’t have a gun problem if you can’t admit an obvious problem because your scared of someone taking your guns your part of the problem..
Fact. There isn't anything up for discussion with John. You either go along with what he says or you are wrong. He's lucky he was having this discussion with someone who still wants the approval of the pleebs in general. Had he discussed this with Colion, this would have went much different. I'd imagine it would end with John throwing a tantrum and storming off. Tell me I wrong. 🤷🏽♂️
@@torlumnitor8230 how can you draw that conclusion if he was never able to fully iterate it or even finish a thought without Jon interrupting and moving on to another Straw man? Really says a lot about your listening and comprehension
I've had to remind lots of people that well regulated means well functioning, like the expression "that's a well regulated individual" in reference to perhaps an athlete. It makes NO sense to say that in order to keep a government from becoming too tyrannical, you need a militia that's heavily regulated by that very government.
The Second Amendment literally reads as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state [COMMA] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment actually reads as follows: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" That comma and everything before it in the second amendment means absolutely jack and squat, it is there to contextualize the second half of the SINGULAR sentence that is the second Amendment, for the sake of any debates and arguments the first half the the second amendment should be ignored entirely, because it is practically irrelevant. More people need to be remined of how the English language works, AND how it was spoken/written when the Constitution was penned, and then we can make our arguments about how it affects us today.
@AG-6969 you need new insults. I know it's hard with your limited cognitive ability. Msm is all trash. Yet your smooth brain is happy to lap it up like a good pet.
@@AG-6969 I don't care about legacy media as a whole. There's some exceptions on some personalities but overall it's all just propped up and fake. CNN, BBC, FOX, MSNBC, etc, they're all just propaganda that benefit from getting as going after each other.
Yeah exactly he’s letting this clown cut him off and move goal posts constantly. Not to mention the plethora of logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty.
Yeah maybe, but I think the Senator still did a great job simply by having enough self control to not just get up and punch this fool every time he insulted him. Maybe if the journalist actually did his job the senator could have developed his ideas a bit more
I think he laughed about saying lack of a father as the cause behind gun violence. Otherwise, yes i agree both parents are vitally important to raising a child
Acknowledging that a child raised in a fatherless home is more apt to commit crimes would be an attack on several democrat party planks. Welfare system which made working fathers in the home not just financially unnecessary but a financial detriment. That also goes against the feminist concept of men as little more than sperm donors, unnecessary at all other times. Then there is the educational system which seemingly wants primary influence over children.
I think he laughed because the rpubs in his states and that senator esp. Have done fuck all, to support the fatherhood programs calling them "well-fare" and have yet to help fund social services. It's the ONE thing where you need actual workers to help stabilize communities buttt pub have a LONG track record of cutting/diverge the funding. I got the joke, but John won't speak on that it will take the convo off topic.
The gun registration laws don't work if people obtain a gun illegally like a lot of criminals do if they use a gun at all. I don't buy this whole narrative of guns being the most effective tool to commit mass murder, when you're preying on innocent people who aren't expecting you to attack there's all kinds of ways to do it. People make bombs out of pressure cookers, you wanna regulate those too? What if they use arson instead would that be any better? Maybe someday after they've passed a law regulating rocks they'll get it.
It's the educating at home, in school. There wasn't a pickup truck at my high school that didn't have a rifle rack in the back window with 2 in it. No one ever got shot.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim."
Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC
He said gun deaths went up but didn’t mention that violent crime in general went down and he definitely wanted to avoid the Australia situation where gun deaths went to zero but deaths in general went up. It seems like they don’t care if people die as long as it’s not by a gun
He also avoids the demographic that's committing the violent crime
Thanks Col. Jeff, RIP good Sir.
So no point in having laws then, according to this brilliant logic, is that right?
Cooper was a very knowledgeable person and his reputation should be taught more 🟦
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Jon Stewart had the balls to debate Colin Noir over the Second Amendment
never happening. jon stewart is too busy studying the talmud
A debate in general with people against guns and the second amendment and aducated people and pro second amendment would be a fun thing to see.
Because people against , never seem to know about the subject and go off on feelings.
And the educated side have facts and logic which cause the other side to start screaming/ not letting someone talk and trying to win by being loud.
It would be awesome
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Colin Noir had the balls to debate Jon Stewart over the Second Amendment
@@guttermouths, how you stated your comment what were you trying to achieve. Or were you implying humor...
I wish they had a stronger person to debate him. But I’m sure this was orchestrated to portray a strong anti 2A bias…
The producers which is probably Steward need and want to produce this very outcome. He needs to look smarter and more sensible than his opponent guests. They can’t have a Colion on l. It would never air or they would heavily edit it all out.
It was an over hour long interview that got chopped down to 8 mins, so who knows how "Daily Show" edited this interview was. This is way you have to do live interviews/debates no prerecorded. That being said he should have know better and not taken part in the first place.
I’m sure that was on purpose. With so many 2A scholars, Stewart picks a relative unknown state Senator from Oklahoma? That’s no coincidence.
@@MrRolyat98 the senator wanted his shine as well and probably backed himself to do better. And the whole interview was not about guns.
They actively avoid something like that though. Think about how bad that would make him look on his own show.
I'd LOVE to see you directly interview Jon Stewart!!!
He wouldn't dare. Jon Stewart is too smart for him.
@@lizardasyeah jon stewart would destroy him. I didn't hear a debunking as much as I heard "debunking what I THOUGHT Jon stewart meant."
@@GeriatricPimp He embarrassed himself by publicly demonstrating his inability to understand Jon.
@lizardas jon can't even read statistics properly...
@@BrandenH-O051 Now you're just being silly.
The entire time the guy’s being super patient and nice while the other is constantly interrupting and being rude. I strive to be this nice to anyone.
The one thong is Stewart broke him down with facts and logic. I'm a gun owner and even I gotta admit he was right on everything.
@@jackeagleeye3453 He was wrong on everything because he constantly put words in his guest's mouth. Also I find it very hard to believe you own so much as a pea shooter with that attitude of yours.
@@jackeagleeye3453 read more
The interruptions are a dirty tactic. Jon is not letting him finish his statements.
@@jackeagleeye3453 no he didn't. He was full of shit. And you are not who you say you are.
This is a perfect example of why I rarely try to talk to people about their insane political views. It goes like this in the best-case scenario. Most often they spout a few buzzwords, refuse to listen to anything contrary, and walk away offended and indignant thinking they nailed it.
Exactly. You nailed it perfectly. That’s why I’m done talking to people to even try to have an honest conversation. I’d just assume the world leave me the F alone.
This man is making me have a headache!
You've just described every conversation I've had with a leftist in the past 20 years. Convincing someone of the truth when they've been led to believe a pack of lies is one of the hardest things to do. It's akin to deprogramming a cult member.
I just keep asking them questions about their logic. They break down real fast. Or they start talking about something else, which I tell them and bring it back to the original topic. Asking them to define their terms almost always throws them for a loop.
@@anon_y_mousse the right are fallible as well.
His condenscending tone says more than his words.
Thanks!
John's not arguing, he's bullying.
No , he's winning . Not because he's mean , or because he's right , Because he's smarter than this guy. This guy is intellectually outmatched. And before you come at me that I'm a liberal and I hate guns just because Im saying this isn't the guy I want representing me on the world stage , that is literally ALL I'm saying. I want someone who's intellectually honest about some of these decent points Stewart is making , to be the one to rebut them. Not this guy. He's not ready.
@@davidgaines8607 And that's why Jon Stewart PICKED HIM. This dude is not all with it
@@davidgaines8607 True! And I believe that goes directly to the point made, that John Stewart planned, prepared and scripted this show and chose his so-called opponent. But even still had to talk over, interrupt and distract him to keep the conversation going on his terms. It was a complete and utter dog & pony show. Complete with the standard lies, misrepresented stats and excuses for denying law abiding citizens their God given right to self preservation rather than directly going after the criminal(s). John Stewart has obviously become very good at all of this and is now apparently willing to use his talents for evil.
The thing is Stewart would've dunked on anyone he debated with those facts. He broke down why conservatives are anti cop.
That he is
The fact that he (John Stewart) asks a question and then just talks over the answer is enough for me. He doesn't want to hear an answer, he just wants to talk to hear himself...
Jon Stewart has flip-flopped over the years. He is a mouthpiece for the prevailing 'Group Think'.
its lebowitz not stewart
He's actually a nutcase.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety. Deserve niether Liberty or Safety"
Benjamin Franklin
Colion, I love your ability to put everything about the gun control agenda so succinctly!!!!! Thank you for your bull dogged manner in keeping us informed.
I can't believe just how combative Jon is. Asks questions, doesn't give his debate opponent an opportunity to answer, and dismisses his answer immediately when he does answer... While interrupting the entire time, whenever he can.
I'd LOOOOOVE to see him attempt to debate Colion Noir.
I 2nd your opinion....
That's by design, Stewart wasn't and NEVER has been looking to have a debate or even an argument in good faith. He does his Wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man shtick and hopes that his gullible audience will be distracted by the fast speed and which he talks and his quippy zinger gotcha moments to actually stop and think for a second that he's grossly conflating the numbers on things.
That wasn't an interview. It was an anti-2A propaganda piece.
Or Candace Owens 😂
In a battle of wits against Colion, John is unarmed.
I was waiting for this one. Stewart picked someone he thought would be easy pickings for ambush “journalism” and “debate”. Stewart probably saw you on Bill Maher, Colion, and knew he didn’t have a chance at pushing his agenda with this much ease. Thanks for your work.
This order doesn't even match up with the conversation. Criminals don't follow the law!
"So your solution is..." Yeah, John doesnt want to listen, he just wants to talk. He came at this with a predetermined outcome and he was going to get it no matter how late the editor had to stay to make that happen.
I generally agree with Jon, and it IS his show, after all. But he does have some personal views that take over at times.
@@stevenredman1582he tried to take over every sentence the senator said so that he couldn't finish any points. That is a tactic used by someone that knows that their arguments aren't actually legitimate. He did nothing but steamroll everything that the senator even started to say without letting him finish anything. Jon Stewart is a hack, and this being his own show is no justification for having a fascist mindset. You should not be a fan of people telling you they know better how to live your life than you do
@@stevenredman1582 Not allowing the other side to talk is a pretty telling characteristic.
One glaring fact I noticed was when he asked a question he never allowed said question to be answered. CONTINUOUSLY interrupted.
Yeah, I saw that part.
Had some young kid tell me once that he felt that owning a gun would make him feel more likely to commit a crime. I told him that he shouldn't own a gun then. This gun talk came about because I was wearing one of your hats Colion! Priceless
Should've told him that's why other people are allowed to have guns...in case some dumbsh#$ that has a gun thinks he's above someone else for the shear fact that said dumbass has a gun
That’s where it stems really, mentally degraded society decay. A gun doesn’t commit violence contrary to the Marxist rats trying to disarm the population under virtue signaling. Kane killed Able with a rock, I don’t think the rock used itself to bash Abled head in 😂
It says there's 2 responses to this comment, but I can't see them. That's weird.
@@chthulu27 The AI deciding what you can or cannot see or say. You thought big brother was overbearing. Starting to feel like Rosa Parks on the Montgomery Bus yet?
@@missingthe80s58 , been that way for a little while now. Now it's just more obvious.
It amazes me that people don't realize that the Constitution is a document from the people to the government and not the government to the people.
The Constitution actually predates the Government
When a lefty tells you "the 2A was written for the government", ask them "are the we the people supposed to be the government?"
it was made by representatives of states, which means in effect - the government
He’s done a lot of 9/11 first responders and he’s fighting for veterans that suffer from toxic burn pit fumes.
@@Dfgbuiiyyyybb those things are completely commendable but doesn't excuse the fact that he misrepresents the actual gun violence numbers.
It bothers me when people interview someone with the intent to argue and push a specific narrative rather than to have a conversation. Thanks for debunking these with facts
The only argument these people have are bad faith arguments
They have to find some way to push their false narrative! The left preys on uninformed people. That'd literally all they do!
I'm just fed up with trying to argue with Socialist control freaks.
@@Manco65 They are communists. Socialism is their base platform, but it will inevitably end with a communist takeover. It should have been snuffed out long ago, now it will most certainly end in a genocide of either Americans or these communist rats infesting the country.
This is why rogan gets heat sometimes. He doesn't push back enough. He lets people talk and says what they really think. This is the outcome an audience actually seeks when they watch or listen. Guess that's why he has the largest podcast in the world. John on the other hand thinks hes doing and interveiw. Hes just trying to score points.
Jon is using the trick of not comparing gun violence to overall violence, and he is doing this in purpose
Tyranny has been described as "the deliberate removal of nuance", which has now become the foundation of most modern leftist arguments. If they act like firearm violence exists in a vacuum, then they can blow it up into a much larger problem than it is in reality.
He also bold faced lied with his "guns kill kids more than everything else". The number he's citing includes 18&19 year olds, with the huge majority of those murdered being gang members
@@sgt.squirtle2528 exactly, killed with illegal handguns, but making sure that you or I can't buy an AR-15, that'll solve the problem right?
I saw a statistic that the number one cause of deaths for children was accidents
also...it is not gun violence vs gun violence
it is gun violence vs violence
also it is a moot point, these are natural rights, stats and positions are irrelevant, it is a right, the bill of rights neither grants or denies anything, it is there as a reminder, guide and warning because it is directed at the government to limit them not the citizens! i could argue and debate so much better than these people they get to argue and debate on tv, i guess that is why Jon gets them cause they get the fundemental argument completely wrong
"it's the only amendment that says well regulated".
It's also the only amendment that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
says the militia is to be regulated. Then it says the right of the ppl to bare arms shall not be infringed (not the militia)
Well regulated from within, not by the government.
The Revolutionary War militias that the amendment is talking about were government run by the states.
The Articles of Confederation is more explicit about what a militia is: "but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage."
So the state can provide weapons to its militia if that's the way it wants to run it. Some states might require people to bring their own weapons. In any case, the militia is a state run body of non-regular (non-professional) armed combatants that is trained with the purpose of protecting the state. It's not groups of dudes running around in the woods pretending to be soldiers or everyone carrying a gun everywhere in case they need it for protection.
@@jasons5916 what is the purpose of the bill of rights? Why does this document exist? Answer - it is a list of individual freedoms.
You cannot say some of them are individual freedoms and some are actually organization of goverment bodies. That makes ZERO logical sense. The framers would not have included this in the bill of rights if that were the case - they would have left the second amendment out entirely.
Also the wording of the first amendment specifically says "the right of the people". Your redefinition of this term "people" means the government because it's "the government of the people" RIGHT? So our modern "reimagination" of the first amendment says that the government can restrict speech and the press and religion if the government decides to because they are "the people" ie "the government of the people".
@@carlkinder8201 Some of the rights in the Bill of Rights are states' rights. The 2nd amendment was considered a right of states for self protection until recently. The Tenth Amendment is a state right. The Constitution describes how the federal government is supposed to work and what powers it reserves for itself. The rest were reserved for the people and the states with the states still having a lot of their own powers as a holdover from being individual colonies and then confederate states. One of the possible issues was the federal government using its powers (specifically military powers) to subjugate a state, so the BoR explains that the states can maintain their own militias.
For your second point, no saying the government is the people does not mean that it can do whatever it wants. The writers of the Constitution and BoR knew that there was a possibility that a majority of the popularly elected government could suppress the rights of the minority, so they purposefully delineated rights that elected officials or government actors could not violate.
Jon will be the kind of person that wakes up one day and realize that our nation has become a tyrannical dystopian nightmare and he will look around and ask "who let this happen".
Then blame the right
Historically speaking, in that scenario, he would be rounded up and executed. No brand new socialist or communist government wants to fight their useful idiots when they discover how badly they had been screwed.
Elon is want to build a corporate ran town .so well on it's way
Trump and the Q-Magat extremists
Almost happened on 1/6 when the mob tried to get Pence and congress to throw the election for Trump. We were close. Never again.
Funny how they'll never have this conversation with prepared advocates who'll stand there ground against someone who won't allow you to respond
I think the senator was prepared, just too polite to not let Stewart interrupt him over and over.
The left will never allow someone who actually knows the facts defeat their silly arguments with facts. This is always set up against anybody that knows the facts. The leftist will always resort to name calling, yelling and screaming because they know what they are saying is a lie. Or they truly believe it and are tarded.
The Senator mentioned on Twitter that the interview was about 90 minutes. Stewart did a LOT of editing. No one should interview with folks like Stewart unless you have your own cameras recording and can release the full unedited interview.
Thank you for what you do Colion, we need more patriots like yourself.
At a quick glance at your name, I thought you were the singer for Nickelback
It's also the only amendment that states the Right "shall not be infringed."
Just confidently ignoring the punctuation that completely changes the meaning. I guess commas no longer exist lololol.
@@kbob9625 It doesn't change anything, because it says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE, and not the right of the militia. SCOTUS already answered this question in the 2008 landmark decision District of Columbia v. Heller.
@@Cybertron824 SCOTUS changed the definition and had a different precedent before that. It wasn't until they were lobbied by the NRA... The comma changes everything. It literally says we have a right to a militia as you can't be considered free if you can't militia and you can't be considered a militia without the right to bear arms. That's what the comma meant and that was the original intent. It was not intended that every American can have a semi auto military assault rifle.
It's ok though, it's not like we have a mass shooting problem not experienced anywhere else on earth even though our mental health is on par with the developed world.
It's not like the leading of cause of children in the US are guns.
No problem here.
@@kbob9625did you even watch the video that stat is wrong and twisted to inflate the numbers but what ever keep making opinions on false information
@@timmyturner8579 it's not wrong lol it's a stat 🤦 people under the age of 18 die more from one thing than anything else, that's a bullet fired from a gun. A lot are suicide which is what you are most likely referring to as "twisting" the stat but that doesn't inflate the stat, where they killed by a gun, yes. It doesn't matter if it was self inflicted or by the hands of a criminal... They still died by gun. My fucking god 🤦 you can watch that entire clip and still come out defending that fucking Senator is mind baffling. Jon Stewart destroyed him lol
I like how the senator doesn’t interrupt Jon but when the senator is about to make a great point Jon blocks that with a simp responce of “you are just against chaos”
"was about to make a great point" 🤣🤣🤣
Mr. Stewart actually said the senator was FOR chaos more than once. He is a real POS.
I had to stop watching because the interruptions were making me grind my teeth. It's not a debate if you don't let the other guy talk.
Flat earthers making points are treated exactly the same regardless of their points or evidence.
he made the mistake of not interrupting, though. Being "nice" to leftists is not the correct thing.
I love how John does not allow him to answer the questions. Constantly cutting him off to keep throwing stupidity at him.
And throwing in the “sighing/chirping” ad libs in order to throw some comedic theatrics in there as if it strengthens the inadequacy of his asinine arguments…. 🤡
I like Jon Stewart as a comic actually and loved his work to help get the 9/11 First Responders Act reauthorized and the PACT Act passed, but as for the 2A and his pro-gun control stances, I’m in complete disagreement.
Honestly I wouldn’t have been able to continue the conversation, I would love just walked out. Stewart is a joke and a puppet.
he would just cut him off and completely change the subject over and over...
That's their go to strategy.
That technique is in the liberal playbook.
“I’m not against the 2nd amendment”…says every opponent of the 2nd amendment. Yes you are, you lying, double-speaking vipers.
@@MoneyTr41l like most Jewish snakes anything for another Shekel, they especially love The Un-earned shekel.
But they crave the shekel earned from immortality That's what gets them off.
EVIL EVIL PEOPLE LOVE EVIL DEEDS
And speaking out of their A$$!
And as soon as those words are spoken, conversation is over. I don't talk to liars.
"I love democracy, I love the Republic."
Palpatine.
I own a gun, got a permit and think the NRA is a piece of shit oorganization. Beimg for the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you have to be an ignorant grifter who condones common sense. This guy is paid off to keep spewing the bs he spits. Can't take everything Glas an outrageous then mock liberals.
The second amendment is the only one that says shall not be infringed
I find it freighting how so many people still take John Stewart seriously.
I don't want to be dick but it's spelled 'frightening'.
@@callumbush1 I don't want to be a dick but it's want not what.
Anyone who takes a Hollyweird actor seriously isn't to be taken seriously themselves
Stewart has the same problem as so many others,he refuses to except,the individual is the solution & the problem
His name is not stewards
The funny thing is, they act like guns aren’t “regulated.”
In the areas where guns are regulated according to their definition crime rime rate is insane.
My gay liberal aunt thought that background checks wernt a thing… she thought that you could go into a gun store and just pick what you wqnt in a shopping cart and walk out🤷♂️
"Guns exist and sometimes people murder people with them, therefore theyre not regulated" is thr thinking. That theyre present at all in their minds proves lack of regulation.
I like the videos that show people getting schooled
on the reality of buying a gun. They end up looking dumb as hell because of their ignorance.
Aint it just funny that the greatest murder rates are in states with the strictest control.
And of course no one talks about who does the murders or why. Take gang killing out of the tally and the numbers plummet.
As someone who caught a bullet with their head 2 blocks away from my local police station, I never once blamed firearms. As a matter a fact I wish I made more money to buy more. I find it very scary how some people can't analyze their own way of thinking and are so blind to their thought process. Love how you explain all of this and how much sense it makes. Hope Stewart sees this
It doesn't matter if he sees it or not, ppl like Stewart don't care about common sense because it doesn't suit their narrative of gun control
@HappyCamper185 true. People like that live in a fantasy world
I agree, frightening! Not even on 2A tip.... sometimes the train of thought....is soooo off the rails? Honestly I haven't seen the source material for this. But you can tell only one person came here for a real conversation...
"gun (dot) deals" (no "dot com", it's exactly as I wrote, but typed "." instead of "dot".) Save money, more brass!
I like Colion but I gotta be honest, after watching this video, it's safe to say that Stewart would destroy him.
The ending of this video is golden! 😂 don’t ever give up your passion here man! Spread the truth, it’s working!
Thanks for the discount Jon!
"Well regulated" means keep your ammo stocked,your weapons clean and repaired,your skills sharp,etc.
That's what I was told.
But of course since we've been changing language since forever. That old word that ment one thing one time. Apparently. Now means somthing totally different because they said so.
I think that is "well maintained"...
Regulated means "controlled by rules or laws".
Maintained means "provided with the necessities for". Big difference.
@@lizardas The term "well-regulated" two hundred years ago meant "to keep something in proper working or functioning order". Later in the 1800's it started to be used as a term meaning "in accordance with applicable laws, policies, or rules." and for a time during the 19th Century it could be used in either definition depending on how it was used in a sentence or paragraph. While the English language has changed and evolved, the original intent of that term "well-regulated" has not. It is well recognized by Constitutional Scholars and the Supreme Court as to its original meaning.
@@marks1638 A single person does not constitute a militia.
They don't even prosecute half of those charged with gun violations... they plea bargain or drop charges as it is.
Many gun laws are illegal to begin with, so are you making an argument that infringements are okay? or that we should accept said infringements and move on to punishments for again, said infringements?
@@francischambless5919 A law BY DEFINITION cannot be illegal. It can be unconstitutional (and thus unenforceable), but it can't be illegal. The law DEFINES what is illegal.
@@francischambless5919 I would point out if these politicians, prosecutors, officials and law enforcement really believe that passing laws that infringe on the second amendment work, then they wouldn't be accepting plea bargains to lesser charges.
If those people did not had the right to get a gun there would be no need for those pleas
@@leonardwei3914of course passing the laws to infringe the rights to a hun would work ,, it works in many countries ,,
I love these videos where you go through and debunk the statements of the self-appointed "experts". I've had the very same "well-regulated" discussion with numerous people. You can lay it out for them using Rakove's interpretation as well as studies from Harvard that you've mentioned, and they just gloss over and say that doesn't "fit" with what they've seen. Well done, Colion. I truly appreciate your efforts in advocating for the 2A.
The next time you have this argument, bring up Federalist #29. Alexander Hamilton literally goes into the idea of a "well regulated militia"
When the police show up to kick in my door, they need to have fear and respect.
I wish I was stupid rich so I could pay Jon Stewart what ever he wanted to sit down for a UNEDITED conversation with you! Keep up the solid work brahda🤙🏽
It's the only amendment that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON
Technically none of them are supposed to be infringed, but they are. The First Amendment says "shall make no law" establishing or preventing religious exercise, or abridging the rights of free speech, assembly, the press and the ability to petition the government, but it seems everyone wants a crack at violating that one.
Does anyone else appreciate the irony of Jon Stewart pushing government registration?
I mean... PEOPLE are the dangerous thing.
Maybe we should give PEOPLE serial numbers, and keep a registry...
Well, his people are nazis towards Palestinians
The Nazis barred Jews from owning guns right before slaughtering millions of them. Guessing Stewart wants to ignore that part of his people's history. George Soros, another Jew who actually cooperated with the Nazis, I'm sure he is the one paying off traitors in this country to argue for more gun control.
You mean because he's Jewish?
Well most gun control advocates either don't care or don't know that most gun control laws are inherently and historically racist. This is the same side that is all about equality and BLM btw. Yet they reference historical analog of racist gun laws as if those are historical precedence.
It's always easy to see when a person doesn't want to have a discussion, but just wants their points acknowledged.
I think the word you’re looking for is “affirm”. In a conversation you acknowledge points to address them. People like Stewart don’t want to talk things out, they want to be right.
The fact that while stewart was making false statements he was nodding his head in agreement shows his intention of appeasement.
@@chaoticiannunez2419 I used the word I was looking for.
ac·knowl·edge
/əkˈnäləj/
verb
past tense: acknowledged; past participle: acknowledged
1. accept or admit the existence or truth of.
2. (of a body of opinion) recognize the fact or importance or quality of.
Affirmation would be a desire to have the other support the point. He knew the senator would not agree with him. He just wanted his points recognized as important or true, or "acknowledged". He didn't want a two-sided discussion.
Its the only amendment that says shall not be infringed!
And well regulated
@@txpat6377 Please stop looking at everything in the amendment ok!? Some people only want to use certain part of the amendment. Depending on narrative.
And nothing in the Constitution even mentions she/girl/woman. Go figure. So no it's not equal or American rights period, they left out a key figure in the rights of citizens.
@@txpat6377NOT Well Regulated by the government!
@@txpat6377 Well-trained.
I can’t lie I’ve been waiting on Colin to respond since the Jon Stewart interview went viral 😂
whenever something regarding gun control happens I think to myself "now what would colion say in this situation..."
@@Killbayne stuff like this happening makes me hope he sees this and that if that makes sense.
Colin is the best..
WOW, this was about as timely a video as I have EVER seen. My sister, who is ANTI GUN sent me the John Stewart video as proof that one of her hero's was right on. 5min after she sent it I sent her yours. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
And neither of you moved the needle one way or the other.
Jon Stewart has no special skill. He is not some great debater. He does not possess a superior intellect. He's just right. That's why the senator looks like a guilty, lying little boy. Dahm knew Stewart was right before the discussion began. Sen. Nathan Dahm knows he's nothing but an ambitious phony who does not care who has to die if it means he succeeds. That is why the senator was used as a mop and disgraced on national television. He did it to himself by being wrong.
“Well regulated” is old school speak for fully-equipped, well-trained, and well-prepared, not what ‘regulated’ means today
I've had progressives laugh in my face in total disbelief when I tell them that.
@@readtherealanthonyfaucibyr6444 they do that alot.
They do that alot. Once I was being told I wasnt part of "The Militia" and then they shoved the very legal code in my face that told me with certainty that i was. And the only people not part of the millia according to the code is Women not in the Armed Forces.
But every able bodied man.
@Read The Real Anthony Fauci by RFK Jr, you mean the people who can't even define what a woman is laughed at you for stating a historical fact? Color me shocked.
Colin….. two words….. THANK YOU
For what? Confirming your bull💩 ideology? 🤡
@@CG-dd9tbI can further confirm it as well.
If a war started Jon is the guy who crawls underneath the table and prays for the government to save him.
Yes while he fights for veterans, this makes sense.
@@ḵulagaaw its possible to support one good thing while being blind about most others. dude is a priviliged liberal who can live in a gated community with bodyguards.
No, he would call his security detail that are armed with...guns.
@@zvz5823 okay. I don't know where he lives. He can definitely be wrong. But on this he listened and responded.
Or he would hope that a “well regulated militia” would come to his rescue.
He pinned the most unprepared representative ever.
Biggest problem is that Jon Stewart wouldn’t watch the video or debate Colion.
It is telling that he won't let the senator talk.
My wife and I love your videos. Thank you for every video and for everything you do.
Everyone knows the most effective way to have a conversation is to ask a question and then immediately interrupt the person when they begin to answer.
He interrupted him because he was about to dodge the question entirely and say "oh but this and that"
You're right it is a one sided conversation only those with an iq below a retarded child believes otherwise. The senator was not deflecting he was being interrupted. Sorry the genius who said otherwise never had a conversation.
@@jaiden1121 on the contrary, you don’t know WHAT the senator was going to say because John never let him say it. A CIVIL conversation/debate doesn’t consist of shouting someone down or browbeating him, it consists of both stating their cases and letting their reasoning make their argument.
@@chancellorofchinense he was about to mention anecdotes when John didn't let him speak. Anecdotes are the opposite of debating.
Stewart wants to talk about gun deaths but majority of gun deaths outside of self inflicted are shootings involving gangs. To eliminate the majority of gangs, drugs, prostitution and gambling need to legalized. Prohibition gives criminals money and power.
I am glad that this senator is on our side, however, I would mop the floor John Stewart in this debate and I'm just a regular pro 2A citizen. Thanks for the great video Colion!
I feel the same exact way, I’m a high school drop out, with zero college, and drive a truck for a living, not only would I destroy Stewart in a debate about the 2nd amendment, or ANY OTHER POLITICAL TOPIC, but that goes for any lefty comedian, actor, or elected officials, Democrats are the most ignorant people in this country. As Is their voters! Any Topic or anything to do with the Constitution. I hate when leftists media elites use terms like “Constitutional attorney” or “Constitutional scholar” are you kidding me? Just read the fkng thing, it’s self explanatory and written in plain English 🤔 🤦♂️. Especially The Bill of Rights! Which are written with the express purpose of stating what Government CANNOT DO! Everything else is just noise. It made me laugh when Biden said: “Way back when they wrote the 2nd Amendment their were restrictions” that is so patently absurd, the first 10 amendments are written to mean the EXACT OPPOSITE, it restricts GOVERNMENT never, EVER, the people 🤦♂️
Bro… No I wouldn’t, not registering guns gives y’all weird ass school shooters a even bigger reason to commit the crime and y’all racist conservative asses will do y’all very best to give him a minimum sentence
I am consistently disappointed by pro-gun debaters who fail to use obviously correct and useful arguments. What Colion Noir is doing here is what we all do when we watch Jon Stewart talk. Stewart's lies are so easy to destroy.
@@CadenTheVillain
Cite one instance, ONE where any conservative, anywhere, advocated for any mass shooter to get the minimum sentence? That’s just typical progressive nonsense that you pulled out of your ass!!! 🤦♂️, “racist conservatives” 😂 obviously you don’t know anything about the history of progressives in the USA!! The first “progressive” Democrat elected president showed the film “birth of a nation” in the whitehouse. It’s such a shame to see so much willful ignorance and lack of critical thinking from leftists in the USA! 🤦♂️
@@reliantncc1864 I could not agree more! It is very disappointing, and makes me think they don't actually care about our rights. If they did they would be able to have a reasonable rebuttal to any of the anti 2A arguments.
Pretty sure "well regulated" means "fully strapped and ready to rock"
You mean, doubting their own virility?
@@lizardas you ought to get out more Liz
@@tobingallawa3322 That was pretty weak, but you get a gold star for not being nasty.
it meant "well trained". not government controlled.
@@joerobo682 Who is doing the training? Do they have to take a test, like we do for driving a car? Do they get a license? Can that license be taken away if they break the law? No, I guess not. That would be government involvement. We can't have government regulating public safety issues, can we? We should just trust everyone to do the ethical, principled, moral thing, and the world will be sunny and bright.
I absolutely hate when interviewers continuously interrupt their subject because they can't stand to allow someone to get a single word out.
How debates used to be: you win because you presented more facts and logic in an efficient manner
How debates are today: you win because you were louder, talked more, and got your brainless base more fired up.
Shall not be infringed
I wish Colion Noir could debate with these types of people. They wouldn't know how to respond 100% of the time.
GNU/Based
The Leftist would never debate with a strong knowledgeable person with equal time including balanced cross examination, because they realize their arguments completely collapse with anyone that they cannot bully into silence.
I would love to see them try. They would just squirm because they’d have nothing.
They don’t want to debate someone like Colin because they want to win debates if they debated Colton they’d get shredded like when Shapiro debates liberals
You’d need a good moderator to keep this crap happening.
Its the only right that says shall not be infringed
I like that jon doesn’t realize he’s saying you should have ID at the voting polls
The democrats in Minnesota have passed a law giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. There's nothing to say they can't vote! You are automatically registered to vote when you receive a DL.
More importantly, voting is not a right. I'm so tired of hearing this. Voting only exists in concert with government. Without government, voting doesn't exist, so it can't be a right. Rights are inherent; they are not dependent on government.
Or that voting registration was literally designed to keep people from voting
This registration to vote argument actually helps the 2a side if you work though it logically. A national gun registration would be the equivalent of the government logging every vote you’ve ever cast and who it was for. The only concession on the 2a side with agreeing here would be some kind of ID requirement to purchase a gun.
Ammendment XXVI Ratified July 1,1971
The right of the citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.
7:00 Yeah, I am a South African and I can confirm that crime is absolutely rampant in this country, long after the guns were taken away the gun violence problem persists. In fact, I had a gun pointed in my face a few weeks ago, and as is pointed out I have no gun to defend myself; But, even supposing I did, had I acted in self defense with a gun I would have likely been going to jail as a result. The laws here honestly feel like they are implemented to protect the criminals and not the citizens.
Even in the USA will go to jail until we are proven innocent of a crime
@@content_enjoyer4458 Who. Me? I am alive. Moved out of that neighborhood so that's a positive step.
think like a criminal when new laws are put out, only then will you see why it benefits them more than it benefits you.
Gun control was just the start, next they'll mess with your income by taxing larger chunks out of it
Liar guns are still sold
Guns are still bought in South Africa
Love how Stewart asks a question, interrupts the answer then proceeds to answer the question himself. When people do that to me, my response is generally, "Well, seems like you're more interested in arguing this with yourself, I'll leave you two be." and then end the conversation.
Love it. The tolerance for stupid this country developed is a serious problem that needs correcting. Idiots get way too much attention now.
I am going to start using this
Cognitive dissonance
Indeed. Jon Stewart went full Cathy Newman mode here. Never go full Cathy Newman.
@@markwest8960 Yeah, rather go full Boebert or full MTG mode.
But be prepared to look stupid...
Suddenly Mr Stewart has a superior grasp of constitutional law vs the Supreme Court, who would have known.
The supreme court is nothing but a partisan cesspool now
I guess if SC really had the ability to snatch guns from some crazy mad man it would have stopped all the deaths from the school shootings ,,
When this first started trending last week, I was hoping, praying, and crossing my fingers for Colion to shred this. I am no disappointed.
He would just be repeating things he previously said in other videos..
Jon cant bring up a talking point cn hasnt already covered.
He who argues with emotions is a fool. Thank you for being our voice, Mr. Colion!
Not just our voice, but our Loud and Clear Voice. He speaks very clear and it is very easy to understand him.
Well said. 2a
Anyone that said "there's no background check" most definitely never bought a gun before
And they never stood there waiting for the paperwork to be processed.
Nope, but they ALL BELIEVE IT. Which is insane. They just accept it.
@@shirothehero0609 I think most people look for "news" that reinforces their preconceived notions.
Even worse - I can't forget screaming at the TV when I heard Obama say, 'Gun Show Loophole' as if you can just show up and buy a gun at a Gun Show. No FFL dealer will sell you a gun and risk going to jail and a fine without a Back Ground Check before the sale. You can't pay an FFL enough money for a gun that's worth going to JAIL over. Good luck with that effort.
"Well regulated" in the Second Amendment means that members of the militia had to be armed and provisioned with enough ammunition to to fight if called up. That's why the individual right to keep and bear arms is so important. Militia members are expected to provide their own weapons and gear.
No. If that were intended, it would have said that. Further, note that you yourself qualify the right as belonging to a well-regulated militia.
@@timwood225 My statement is exactly what the framers meant, as that's what "Well regulated" meant in the language of the day and subject. Also, the regulated item in the 2nd amendment is the MILITIA, not the right to keep and bear arms. The militia in Constitutional context means every able-bodied person in the civilian population who are able to be called up to military service by their state or the Federal Government. That's the unorganized militia. The organized militia is standing state forces. However, the 2nd amendment does NOT make that distinction, and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clear as a bell. If the right to keep and bear arms were limited to the militia, it would have said "the right of the militia", not the "Right of the people".
Yours amounts to the proposition that the writers of the constitution considered "well regulated" any fool with a musket, powder, and ammunition, which seems to me unlikely especially considering the experience of the continental army at the start. Do you claim that everyone in the US has an absolute constitutional right to have, possess, and own a gun? And it matters not-very-much what everyone said, but rather what the law says - that being what everyone settled upon. And further, any right to own a revolutionary-war era weapon cannot be reconciled with modern weaponry, practice, and society. Keeping in mind that "absolute" means absolute, and "everyone" means everyone. Unless by "absolute" and "everyone" you do not mean what these words say.
@@timwood225 Let's cut to the chase - The individual right to keep and bear arms is essential to have a well-armed and regulated militia, which is NECESSARY to the security of a FREE state. That's what the friggin amendment says. Military and militia regulation is instituted to standardize equipment and training needs, not to deny Americans the right to keep and bear arms. You need individuals with guns to call in to militia service.
So what "people" do you say have this right? All people? If not all, then who is excluded, and given your reading of the 2A, how are they excluded? And as to the weapons to secure a free state these days, where do you buy those? The trouble here is you're lost in a stupid and ignorant fantasy of wishful thinking involving guns. Now, you weren't born with it, so be a little honest with yourself and see if you can figure out how you became a gun-nut. I'm not asking, but I'll read what you write.
Thank you for all that you do, Colion!
Jon Stewart is one of those public figures who does get things right now and then but not enough for me to bother watching him. Even Bill Maher accepts objective reality to a far greater degree than Stewart does.
I never thought I'd see that happen though. Who knows, maybe Jon Stewart will grow up one day too.
Not holding my breath.
lebowitz not stewart
Jon Stewart is the living breathing version of the "dude smelling his own farts" meme.
Important to notice how Jon cut the Senator off nearly every time he tried to answer.
It's cause he's not as smart as he thinks he is. If he allowed people to actually explain their arguments Stewart would look stupid cause nothing he says is profound, he simply doesn't let the other person argue back.
I'm very much in favor of gun control and agree with Jon Stewart's stance, but his behavior on this interview was pathetic.
@@TaylorMefford-u1i just like you 👍
Isn't that the common move of every move of the left?
@@billellis3137 I think it's a common debate tactic in general. If you watch any presidential debate, everybody is doing it. It's an embarrassment.
Thank You Colion for putting this out there, Stewart is the kind of person that would rather confront a house intruder with a dildio then protect his family. Its not about safety! its about not letting the goverment have all the power and for us citizens NOT to be thrusted into Tereny from an abusive Goverment. Like we are heading into now!!
Colion Noir needs to sit in front of Jon Stewart and educate him with these facts in this video.
He already has
@@kmack764 when and where?
@@kmack764 he’s talked to him 1 on 1 already? can you elaborate?
Stewarts too big of a coward to sit in the same room as Colion. Who knows, maybe Jon is secretly a racist? It's clear he despises Jews, so why not?
Hahahaha, me too, he'd be putty in Stewart's hands. Maybe then people would stop listening to Colin who is bought and owned by the NRA
Even out of context Jon Stewart seems like a very unreasonable person to talk to. How that man stayed so calm and reasonable with him is pretty impressive.
Air heads
Man, that was infuriating, interrupting and all kinds of unsavory tactics.
Typical centrist
He's on a mission to push a narrative. He's not there to learn or debate. He's going to say guns bad over and over
That was a beatdown by jon. Thoroughly
Did he even let the Senator speak?! I’m from Oklahoma and I support Senator Dahm 1000%!
No. He did not let him speak, from what I saw here. Disingenuous at best. Almost embarrassed to have been a long time Stewart fan. Almost, nothin, I am embarrassed.
@@LaserParody Lol same here! It's not even the fact that he's anti gun or "pro gun legislation" (however he wants to interpret his stance), it's how poor his arguments are and how arrogant his rebuttal are. I expected more from someone who's so l loud about his opinions and who considers himself an intellectual.
Not only that, but I’d bet the best arguments against were edited out entirely.
@@T-8UG83AR
The real problem is that in current times all of the "Educated" and "Intellectuals" are all self proclaimed and anointed and cheered by other self proclaimed intellectuals who in reality are anything but educated or intellectual
From what I saw of the trans agenda part of this interview...No. He spoke over him and cut him off the entire time.
He won't admit that, by law, the police have to assume it's a good guy with a gun unless they have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime.
Not that the police follow that all the time or even know it half the time...
To me since the 2nd amendment says 'the people ' it means the people NOT the government. Especially since the government hasn't even been for or of the people for a long time. ❤️👍🇺🇲
Correct. If the 2nd amendment was written for the government, why would it say "the people"? And why would a constitutional amendment exist strictly to protect the right of the government to bear arms? Seems redundant when the government already has the authority to bear arms through the military.
Leftists: the people ARE the government!!
Next time a lefty tells you "gun rights are for the government only and not the people", hit them with "in America, the people ARE the government.." (or at least that's how it's supposed to be..)
@@smokingcrab2290 No. At one time the government was compiled of people giving some of their time to help with governing. Now it is comprised of career politicians who only use their position to gain power, money and control OVER the people. They are not the people. I'm a Constitutionalist.
Ironic how Jon will interrupt the Senator every time he's about to say something that would shut Jon down. Yet, the Senator is very patient and doesn't interrupt Jon.
The senator dodge every question because he couldn’t answer them without sounding stupid
@@CadenTheVillain because John kept asking stupid questions and proving he doesnt care about the underlying issues with gun violence or care about far more pressing issues that causes far more deaths. T
I wonder who's paying Jon .
@@CadenTheVillain “dodge” implies he was even given a chance to answer.
I’m not sure that’s irony
This interview wasn't even an interview. It was like watching a parent verbally punish a child. You could see he wasn't interested in what the senator had to say.🤦🏼♂️😒
That's because the senator had NOTHING TO SAY.
Jon Stewart has no special skill. He is not some great debater. He does not possess a superior intellect. He's just right. That's why the senator looks like a guilty, lying little boy. Dahm knew Stewart was right before the discussion began. Sen. Nathan Dahm knows he's nothing but an ambitious phony who does not care who has to die if it means he succeeds. That is why the senator was used as a mop and disgraced on national television. He did it to himself by being wrong.
Colion would've made a better debater than this senator.
@@TCraig00 Stewart wouldn't have stood for the straw-manning Colion did here.
You got it all right! Jon is a coward and will hide from you forever.
Jon is proof that common sense is not common.
common sense requires common experiences and common knowledge and we live in a very divided country
It was never common. It’s just rarer than a unicorn or a truthful politician now
Don't make that mistake. Jon Stewart isn't dumb. He's dishonest. He's not missing the obvious flaws in his argument. He's purposely dodging them. He's a liar and a traitor.
@@reliantncc1864 💯🎯👏🏾
@@joeberentsen The country has always been divided.
I saved myself from being robbed just the other night and didn’t turn it in to the police wonder how many times this happens? John don’t get robbed you might get hurt
Some estimates put your experience in the millions annually. If a crime isn't reported, it isn't recorded, often incidents without discharge of firearms are not even recorded.
Glad you are safe.
I like how when the senator brought up the example of the domestic victim jon countered by saying anecdotal evidence doesn't count while making the exact same argument in reverse WITHOUT any examples...
Johns sarcasm is overwhelming and he is so rude, the senator should just tell him thanks for showing us your true colors and get up and leave. Screw John Stewart and his linear kindergarten thinking!!
Jon Stewart: "the police don't FEEL safe" (offers no backup for that claim)
Also Jon Stewart 2 minutes later "I'm not interested in anecdotes"
Things that make you go hmmmmm
He mean he's not interested in anecdotes that make him look bad. 😂
On his show he actually talked to a police officer about the fact that many cops do indeed not feel safe. You shouldnt claim he couldnt back up his argument if you are unwilling to seek out that information on your own
@@oogmastaa4 that's still anecdotal. And did you say it was on his show in general? Or somewhere else in this interview?
Also i've heard from many pro gun people and cops they feel much better with increased gun and CCW. So anecdote vs anecdote
@@oogmastaa4 Also, Stewart didn't provide an argument. "someone said they feel" isn't an argument.
@@177SCmaro He actually lays out a full argument on his show. Talking to the cop wasnt the only thing he did. Once again, a little bit of research goes a long way
You know Jon Stewart came to this debate to win rather than find the real way to fix the issue.
Which is funny because he's doing the opposite.
People who are strongly pro- or anti-gun won't be swayed by this interview. Reasonable people who are on the fence will, and they'll be swayed _against_ Stewart as soon as they notice that he's doing nothing but interrupt and spew sound bites while the Senator is trying to make calm, reasonable arguments.
Stewart is doing exactly what he told the hosts of _Crossfire_ was "hurting America." He's a hypocrite.
He stated facts vs a person acting like we don’t have a gun problem if you can’t admit an obvious problem because your scared of someone taking your guns your part of the problem..
if you really think that a debate between two people would solve this "issue" then you my friend are mentally slow
A dumb comedian having a gun rights debate. Send police with guns to protect you, brilliant. Blue line gang supoorter
Fact. There isn't anything up for discussion with John. You either go along with what he says or you are wrong. He's lucky he was having this discussion with someone who still wants the approval of the pleebs in general. Had he discussed this with Colion, this would have went much different. I'd imagine it would end with John throwing a tantrum and storming off. Tell me I wrong. 🤷🏽♂️
Can we talk about how he never let the senator finish a point
the senator didn't have a point.
Dude it got on my nerves how much Jon interrupted
@@torlumnitor8230 how can you draw that conclusion if he was never able to fully iterate it or even finish a thought without Jon interrupting and moving on to another Straw man? Really says a lot about your listening and comprehension
Stewart is a rhetorical debater, unfortunately the senator seems outclassed in this arena.
This was a heavily edited interview….
Jon would never show any points by the Senator that made a good argument to be shown..
If laws worked to prevent things. The war on drugs would not be a failure
But it was a war worth fighting!
I'm so glad that you addressed this video. We can only hope that he'd be brave enough to one day have this conversation with you, live and on camera 😏
I've had to remind lots of people that well regulated means well functioning, like the expression "that's a well regulated individual" in reference to perhaps an athlete. It makes NO sense to say that in order to keep a government from becoming too tyrannical, you need a militia that's heavily regulated by that very government.
The Second Amendment literally reads as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state [COMMA] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment actually reads as follows: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
That comma and everything before it in the second amendment means absolutely jack and squat, it is there to contextualize the second half of the SINGULAR sentence that is the second Amendment, for the sake of any debates and arguments the first half the the second amendment should be ignored entirely, because it is practically irrelevant.
More people need to be remined of how the English language works, AND how it was spoken/written when the Constitution was penned, and then we can make our arguments about how it affects us today.
I'm even more alarmed that people put so much stock in what some former TV propagandist has to say.
Like all of FOX News host?
@AG-6969 you need new insults. I know it's hard with your limited cognitive ability. Msm is all trash. Yet your smooth brain is happy to lap it up like a good pet.
@@AG-6969yep. CNN, msnbc, NBC, ABC.
Dk why you singled out fox. But I have a hunch.
They are all the same
@@AG-6969 I don't care about legacy media as a whole. There's some exceptions on some personalities but overall it's all just propped up and fake. CNN, BBC, FOX, MSNBC, etc, they're all just propaganda that benefit from getting as going after each other.
Tv propagandist? He’s a comedian. 😝 funny how a comedian destroys your dumb gun arguments.
The very words are actually against State regulation… they are for the People to regulate themselves! Excellent show
Senator is one of those people who means well, but doesn’t know how to argue a point.
Go on his show and debate him.
Yeah exactly he’s letting this clown cut him off and move goal posts constantly. Not to mention the plethora of logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty.
Yeah maybe, but I think the Senator still did a great job simply by having enough self control to not just get up and punch this fool every time he insulted him. Maybe if the journalist actually did his job the senator could have developed his ideas a bit more
It is proven that having a strong, stable father in the home for children is beneficial all around. And he laughed at it.
Yeah, I think it is quite obvious that Jon is pro fatherlessness
I think he laughed about saying lack of a father as the cause behind gun violence. Otherwise, yes i agree both parents are vitally important to raising a child
Acknowledging that a child raised in a fatherless home is more apt to commit crimes would be an attack on several democrat party planks. Welfare system which made working fathers in the home not just financially unnecessary but a financial detriment. That also goes against the feminist concept of men as little more than sperm donors, unnecessary at all other times. Then there is the educational system which seemingly wants primary influence over children.
I think he laughed because the rpubs in his states and that senator esp. Have done fuck all, to support the fatherhood programs calling them "well-fare" and have yet to help fund social services. It's the ONE thing where you need actual workers to help stabilize communities buttt pub have a LONG track record of cutting/diverge the funding. I got the joke, but John won't speak on that it will take the convo off topic.
Colion, you're doing good work! Never stop! Thank you, Brother!
You have done an amazing job exposing the liars. Keep going.
He then left followed by 4 armed bodyguards while muttering "I just don't understand why people won't give up their firearms"....
Ha, so true!
Jon doesnt let him get a word in without blaming guns.
The gun registration laws don't work if people obtain a gun illegally like a lot of criminals do if they use a gun at all. I don't buy this whole narrative of guns being the most effective tool to commit mass murder, when you're preying on innocent people who aren't expecting you to attack there's all kinds of ways to do it. People make bombs out of pressure cookers, you wanna regulate those too? What if they use arson instead would that be any better? Maybe someday after they've passed a law regulating rocks they'll get it.
Pure sophistry from John. He should be embarrassed of his performance. I would wager he has armed guards around him.
It's the educating at home, in school. There wasn't a pickup truck at my high school that didn't have a rifle rack in the back window with 2 in it. No one ever got shot.